Rules are demonstrably very poor at guiding moral behavior. When the moral behavior is seen as being self-serving is when the behaviors are practiced better. When you see people as separate with separate interest, this is a delusion that often leads to repugnant acts. Ich du, Ich das, kind of thinking is the chasm that separates people in abominable times.

I actually did not know that at all. I speak german, I lived in germany, and interviewed hundreds of germans from the time period about their experiences in WWII. The events as you describe it are pure fabrication. Certainly there were suicides at the time...as there always is. Not sure how that would fortify any argument you are making anyway if there were people going "crazy" everywhere at the time. I know these are just errors, but does it bother you that by your own moral code that persistently repeating errors like this risk your soul?

Of course, one persons myth is another persons Light and Truth, right splendour?

It is not a fabrication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_su...5_Nazi_Germany

I know people like labels on here but compare what Hitler was preaching to what historically Christianity teachs.

Hitler's appeal was to the ego and to ethnic domination of the world by one group.

Christ taught humility. He never taught any of his disciples to ascend over anyone else. He taught footwashing. He reproved the Sons of Zebedee for wanting to rain down thunder on unbelievers.

Hitler wanted to rain down thunder on everyone and encouraged suicide if people failed.

Judaism and Christianity are pro-life and don't tell anyone to commit suicide.

You should see the program I mentioned. In it it tells of the Nazis forcing sterilization on people seen as having undesirable traits. One woman got a letter that she would be sterilized for having had a nervous breakdown in the past. But who was crazier...A suicide encouraging Hitler or a woman who had had a one time lapse? A permanent lapse or a temporary lapse? I think the woman was stronger than Hitler. Hitler was really a bully-weakling poseur if you think about it.

I think the problem is people are trying to make Buddhism into something it is not.

Saying X is one thing and X is not another, will keep you stuck in samsara.

As the Dali Lama said, and to paraphrase - the labels we attach to ourselves don't matter too much, what really matters is that we are good human beings.

BTW, Buddhism does have some rules of behavior, sort of - though they are probably more general and open to interpretation than a westerner is used to.

It is right to say a lot of people don't understand Buddhism in the West, its hard for westerners because the cultural differences are so strong. A lot of the time, for us westerners we get caught up in the supposed "exotic nature" of foreign cultures. Ultimately, this hinders our development and only strengthens ego.

FWIW, Buddhism is nothing special - it has a long history just like a lot of other world religions. Remember, people are falliable - even buddhist monks. To point out some of the troublesome periods in buddhism because someone is angry that people point out the troublesome periods in other religions is very high school.

Also, one of the first buddhist teachers in the west gave up buddhism and put forth secular teachings - all revolving around preparing ourselves for the battle to save Shambhala. Perhaps the point being the teachings are not east and west or buddhism v. not buddhism - but have an independent value. You can take Shambhala teachings literally or you can actually dig a little deeper, think about it and see if there are deeper lessons there.

See my problem is what constitutes inappropriate attraction? Because afaik im not inappropriately attracted to anyone. I dont see anything wrong with being attracted to someone who is not my wife or longtime girlfriend.

I dont disagree with most of this accept that anger can generally only solve purely physical problems. Im angry homosexuals arent allowed to marry, it pisses me off. I vote partially based on that anger over that injustice. And in my state they are allowed to now. Another example would be online poker. It makes me mad im not allowed to play more freely. That anger has lead me to protest my governments actions. Nothing yet so far. But hopefully some day ill be able to play more freely.

I do agree anger can be bad if dwelt on or allowed to go to far. But that was never my point. And although i like you. The second part here seems like a bit of double talk. It seems like you think i should get rid of anger altogether.

This is all i mean. Buddhism is not perfect, it has faults like everything else.

I think its an assumption i blow around in the wind with my emotions (most who know me would say the opposite). As an example i used to have a vary bad temper when i was young. It took a lot of work and a long time to control and get a hold of that. But i did and Buddhism wasn't necessary for that.


But id agree you can learn wisdom form most beliefs out there.

I don't consider it high school to point out other religions turbulent periods.
Because if you don't know about it then you can fall under the mythic spell that Buddhism is better than other religions.

Besides the atheists on here want to assert Christians don't know anything about other religions so our claims fail when the truth is they probably know even less.

But that argument is all an argument of misdirection anyways because Christianity never purported to be a religion. See Christ's words against religion.

Christianity says it is the Truth.

Above KB24 kept saying the Buddha never said. Well the Buddha also said "Kill the Buddha".

Buddhism is not a revealed religion.

Im going to quote this so many times....

Well think about it.

False ideas thrive where there is a lack of information.

Revealed religion is a western concept, which surprisingly, wouldn't apply to Buddhism. You are trying to analyze things with a cultural bias. Its fine - but one has to realize that there is an inherent prejudice in our thought processes. We grew up in the west, with certain icongraphy - its surrounded us our whole lives and is so ingrained that it creeps up and colors our world view - especially when we are peering into the world's of others. This bias is something to which we must remain mindful.

As such, it is meaningless to say Buddhism isn't a "revealed religion" since, AFAIK, "revealed religion" is defined as a religion founded on the principles of the Abrahamic God revealed to man that would not necessarily be known by human reason. To say an eastern religion is not a revealed religion is tautological and therefore meaningless.

You are missing the point if you keep thinking in terms of Buddhism is better than ____ or Chrisitanity is better than _______.

I may be incorrect but you seem to be taking the statement of Christianity being the "truth" very literally, like - ahem - 2+2=4. I think you are missing the point of chrisitianity being the "truth."

In regard to your argument about pointing out the trublenent histories of certain religions - couldn't the same be applied to christianity? Perhaps the negatives need to be highlighted so people don't fall under the mythic spell that christianity is the better of religions?

To say you know Christianity is the end all of spirituality is akin to saying you know God's plan - nothing comes across as more unchristian to me. It is plain and simple human hubris. Modesty is a holy virtue.

p.s. I would seriously recommend studying up on what Buddha meant when he says "Kill the Buddha."

I don't think anyone said you were inappropriately attracted to someone. I said "if" and used an example that could be inappropriate, not that by definition that it was or that buddhist philosophy said it was. I am sure you can agree that in some cases those are segments of the population in which you could think of inappropriate targets of lust without much strain on your imagination.

Disagreeing with other people being repressed is not a vice at all. Taking action to cease suffering is good. Being angry about it has physical effects and really does not help. Check out Dr. Martin Seligman's research, Dr Amen, and others, interesting stuff. There is no double talk. I never said anger is something that should be done away with completely. To be angry when it is reasonable is fine, to be mindful of your emotions and abstain from being your own worst enemy is just wise.

I don't think you understand what buddhist philosophy is fundamentally, which is fine, but the example I gave was that just because someone is even considered an expert by some does not mean they get it or are flawless in thinking. Mine was a criticism of the thinking of that particular lady, not in the philosophy as a whole. I think the broad brush strokes of eschewing faith and embracing observation and reason, having loving-kindness for yourself and others, and maintaining balance emotionally are pretty unimpeachable. The concept of perfection is a pretty tough standard to demand. lol : )

I did not assume you blow around on the winds of your emotions. You were talking about the value of anger. I was talking about the parameters that would keep one in balance, nothing personal.

There is wisdom in many things, some you must sift through too much to get to it.

Good idea on researching "Kill the Buddha". I'm basing my statement on what I remember from reading one of Thich Nhat Hanh's books.

you have kindly demonstrated this on a regular basis in nearly every subject imaginable.

You are missing the point, kind of - a lot of people blindly judge and interpret things based on what they know and don't question the center of their conceptual frameworks. These frameworks which we use to interpret the world are developed by our cultural upbringing - it creeps into everything. We may say eating bugs is gross and uncivilized, but that is just a cultural bias.

So you are correct when you say people aren't aware of "their roots or where they came from" - I would take it a step further and say people are unaware of how the conceptual framework in which they interpret the world is built.

You are also correct to say some cultural bias in examining things helps, it provides context and meaning - however, it hurts when we pass judgment and act as though its an objective truth.

Correct sort of, but you are missing the point. The whole definition of "revealed religion" wouldn't apply since it deals with the Abrahamic God. Its a western concept - and as far as we are dealing with Abrahamic religions, yes - judaism would be considered part of the western culture.

The main point is you can't judge another belief system, that is vastly culturally different from yours because you don't have the conceptual framework in place to gain the deep understanding of the ideas. Its pretty much why the Dali Lama has said no to give up your own culture and beliefs, its why Chyogam Trungpa abandoned the robes when teaching westerners.

As such to say Buddhism is not a "revealed religion" well yeah, ldo. Buddhism is not part of the Abrahamic tradition. It means little to nothing because the concept of reveal religion is culturally biased.

Hopefully this clears up some of what was nebulous.

No matter what Christians purport Christianity to be it will still be a religion. Whether it is true or not has no bearing on whether or not it is a religion.

This may be helpful for all:
WEBSTERS DEFINITION OF RELIGION

...

1. (a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
(b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

precisely why I am both buddhist and atheist

You can believe the world's definition if you want. But the world oftentimes mixes in irrelevant information or leaves out critical information to understand Christ's meaning.

Christ is the highest source on Christ. Not the world.

no. There is nothing irrelevent or missing. Its a very simple definition. Christianity is a religion. If you think otherwise it is only because you don't understand the meaning of the word.

There is nothing in scripture that is relevent to this.

You read the definition and see if it applies:
Yep, Christianity fits. Therefore it is a religion.

For it not to be a religion you have to make up a new definition of religion at which point you're talking about something completely different.

Never condemed culture as inadequate - but it colors and biases our views and judgments. It is something people need to be aware of - like eating the bugs, you may think its gross and uncivilized but to another culture it could be the pinnacle of fine dining. Also, nothing that I have said is incongruent with the verse you quoted.

I think you are correct in that spiritual teachings are perpetuated through culture, but again you are missing the larger point - God revealed through one culture is vastly different than through another. Look at the Italian Catholics v. Mexican Catholics. Further, take you statement about revealation, and suppose God revealed himself to many different cultures (why not? he created the whole sha-bang. Us falliable humans can not know God's mind and or plan) These teachings would necessarily be filtered through each individual culture (language, symbology, environment, etc ...) and after thousands of years, these may come to a form that really don't resemble each other at all. Its not really all that implausible (if you, of course, want to believe in God). Now, the question is whose culture is God's?

I have a sense when you say God is a particular culture you feel that God's culture is your culture. Tell me if I am incorrect, but how do you know this? How do you know what is God's plan? How do you know that God hasn't revealed himself to many?

You are your mind - you are not at the mind's mercy. The mind is at your mercy. You have more control over your thoughts than you think (or want to think). The assigned values to objects are your choice. Buddhist meditation can help you with this. You can recognize your own cultural bias - its not a bad thing, you don't have to eat the bugs if you don't want to. Its just that the people eating bugs are not necessarily wrong because you don't assign the same value to it. You see the difference?

All-in-all, my argument is for tolerance. To say that your particular religion or belief system is the right way to go is the ultimate in hubris. I find that particular line of thinking not only unchristian, but certainly un-buddhist. What was it that Jesus and many others have said, that do unto others thing ....

I know. I just asked what is inappropriate attraction. And said i dont think i am inappropriately attracted to anyone.
Alright im just going to step aside because i dont think im communication vary well or something.

probably me. sorry, I promise I meant well. lol

No its most likely me. Im bad with the words sometimes. Plus i really shouldn't be criticizing something i know vary little of.

Buddhism has no monopoly on meditation and if you think they do you might miss being born again. Jesus Christ said "You must be born again."

Not only does buddhism have no monopoly on meditation, I would be very pleased (as the Dalai Lama is by the way) to have the two things segregated for public consumption. I think that it is a big problem in getting more people to do meditation, which would be extremely helpful, that there are some people confuse the two. I would be very very pleased for more people to get the benefits of the best science available, and the confusion about what portion could be tenets of another religion can be a stumbling block to some.

The fact is you can be both buddhist and christian, and there is absolutely nothing biblical that would prevent you from doing though.

Judaism preceded Buddhism. It was around thousands of years before the Buddha was born. So I don't think Buddhism is the origin of Christian beliefs.